• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump's SCOTUS Nominee

Wrangor said:
You are confusing Conservatives with Republicans. There is often a difference...Donald Trump would be a great example.
Click to expand...

First, there is plenty of overlap. Second, which side are you saying consistently stands for limited government? I've seen evidence of neither.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Yes, many philosophers of the 19th century believed it. To be fair to them, they lived in vastly different area and it is not a difficult proposition to get behind. Intelligence, physical strength, speed and agility, critical thinking, and many more human traits are almost entirely genetically derived. It logically follows that having the "best" humans procreate would produce babies with greater likelihood of having those traits. But to insinuate that those liberal philosophers were in some way responsible for causing the environment that allowed Hitler to rise to power and start the Holocaust is to pervert how Hitler came to power. I don't want to get into that, as it will devolve into madness quickly, but it does those philosophers a huge disservice to associate them with one of the greatest tragedies of human history.

And it is an even greater disservice (though I hesitate to say intentional) to suggest that liberal ideals today in any way mirror those of such philosophers. I know of no sane person that identifies as liberal that would remotely suggest that eugenics or targeted procreation would be acceptable in society. And conflating the two is dangerous.
Click to expand...

We agree here. I am not trying to suggest than any modern day liberal believes in these ideas. My only point was to answer Mystery's suggestion that progressive ideas were always correct.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
I originally asked due to your top quote where you said that conservatives weren't against progress, it just looked different. I just wanted to know what you thought conservative progress was, or just what your personal ideas of progress would be and how they differ from liberal ideas of progress.

In my view, progress is giving everyone a voice and allowing individuals to seek their own paths, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, social class, etc. I think progress is confronting the inequalities inherent in our society and combatting them. I think progress is preaching acceptance and understanding, not fear and anger.

How I think we can achieve such progress is eliminating as many barriers as possible. I think we should examine significant defense cuts and try as hard as possible to use those excess funds for education. In tandem with that, I think that a total revamp on the education system is warranted. We should be raising the ceiling, not the floor. And we should be teaching our children than intelligence is not something to be afraid of or to resent. We should champion those who are smarter than us and aspire to reach those same heights.

I think we can achieve progress by guaranteeing everyone the most basic of rights: food, water, shelter. And I believe strongly that healthcare should be included on that list. Now, that debate is tired and will get nowhere, but it is in my (as many liberals') idea of progress.

And I think every person deserves a right to make decisions regarding their own body. As it seems to be the topic of the thread, I'll include my views. I understand why some believe life starts at conception. I am in the viability camp. I think progress should be that every woman has a right to decide what she does with her body and the government has no business in dictating those decisions for women. Conservatives champion limited government, and I believe according to that ideology, they should agree.

I could continue, but I fear I am rambling at this point. I welcome all questions and hope to have a non-inflammatory conversation. This is how I view progress and I don't mean to ascribe my views to others that would consider themselves liberal. Hope this helped you see how I see the world.
Click to expand...

I would say that you and I have a lot of points we agree upon. Particularly the role of the military / education spending. While it clearly is a Republican/Democrat point of contention I don't see the military/education discussion being overtly liberal or conservative personally, it is just kind of how the parties have currently lined up when it comes to spending. Obviously disagree on what it means to protect one's own body. I believe that right should be extended to the most vulnerable of our society, and you believe those vulnerable are not yet human despite having all the physiological tools in place to mature into adulthood. I am also with you on much of the personal liberties, but I am sure there is a breaking point between on those issues (but not one that would be extremely hostile, I would just think it has devolved into silly season).

In general I feel myself to be pretty moderate with a libertarian lean. There are many issues I depart with traditional Republican philosophy, and it usually are the issues in which I feel they have departed from their conservative roots. I get tired of the nauseous droning about how liberals have everything good figured out, and how conservatives just want to stop good things, and that is probably what triggered my initial response, but I appreciate your honest discourse. Have a good one. Back to work for me.
 
Come on Wrangor, why can't you admit you were totally wrong in your assertions about conservative Christians' impact on slavery, abolition and the civil rights movement?

You are acting like you didn't say it.
 
RJKarl said:
Come on Wrangor, why can't you admit you were totally wrong in your assertions about conservative Christians' impact on slavery, abolition and the civil rights movement?

You are acting like you didn't say it.
Click to expand...

RJ, please stop. Please.
 
knowell said:
I don't disagree with you about abortion but it is disingenuous to consider scientific advancement and greater access to education and contraception as exclusively liberal. The conservative position might argue against government being the primary or sole driver in these.
Click to expand...

Dude republicans have been using government at every level to actively stymie scientific advancement (especially related to energy) and access to sex education and contraception for years.

I agree that there are conservative, small government, free market arguments about how to achieve those things, but conservatives in America aren't making them right now.
 
As to conservatives and government, conservatives tried to block civil rights, OSHA, EPA, gay rights and much more.
 
knowell said:
By definition conservatives want things to change slowly (if at all). Liberals want quick sweeping change, most often using government as the tool of that change. There have been many positive societal changes spearheaded by liberals which include minority rights, gay rights, safer work environments, etc. It is important to remember that what is considered conservative vs liberal changes over time.

Relatively recent liberal failures include large housing projects in the inner city as well as the huge number of minority children growing up fatherless. If we go back a little further, communism is a prime example of a liberal idea that was not only impractical but resulted in more deaths than any other idea. From the same general time we had eugenics championed by Margaret Sanger, James Bernard Shaw, and quite a few other liberals of that time. This helped to create the environment that led to the holocaust.

The problem with mistakes that are spearheaded by governments is that there is no one to rein them in.
Click to expand...

Right. This is my point and what Wrangor was trying to deny. Conservatives do a lot of harm by opposing all change, or at least rapid change, of issues that inflict a massive cost on society. Prioritizing "moving slowly" is not worth it when it leads to things like maintaining segregation for decades
 
And conservatives aren't just opposing changes like desegregation. They're trying to roll them back.
 
knowell said:
Link?
Click to expand...

piq_111980_400x400.png
 
MysteryMen said:
Right. This is my point and what Wrangor was trying to deny. Conservatives do a lot of harm by opposing all change, or at least rapid change, of issues that inflict a massive cost on society. Prioritizing "moving slowly" is not worth it when it leads to things like maintaining segregation for decades
Click to expand...

Yup. And it's a shame because the Republican Party and conservative ideas more broadly could have a place in bringing about positive change. At its best, conservativism is about making government work smarter and more efficiently to achieve goals that the majority of Americans share. At its worse (where we are today) it is about stopping government from working at all or actively using government to fight against progress for the benefit of a small minority.

Right now Democrats and Republicans can't even agree on basic goals for the country. It's not that Republicans think Democrats are going about universal access to quality healthcare, access to quality education, scientific research and advancement, criminal justice reform, etc. the right way, its that Republicans don't want those things.
 
The Republican Party at this point is pretty much 100% concerned with making sure that rich people don't have to pay a lot of taxes. 90% of their other positions stem from this or exist solely to attract voters that will allow them to keep taxes down.
 
Very true.
 
MysteryMen said:
The Republican Party at this point is pretty much 100% concerned with making sure that rich people don't have to pay a lot of taxes. 90% of their other positions stem from this or exist solely to attract voters that will allow them to keep taxes down.
Click to expand...

I think this might be a little too strong, though I agree with the sentiment as a whole. I think there is a large chunk of what positions they take with making sure that they still retain power. The Republican party is the minority party. They have lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes for Presidency. But through absorbing the alt-right, a healthy amount of gerrymandering, and enacting laws that make it much harder for minorities to vote, the Republicans are clinging to power.

At what cost, though?

Here is a link to a good article on why gerrymandering is such a problem and how Republicans are abusing it to maintain control of legislatures across the nation despite consistently gaining less votes than Democrats.

And this is not to say that Democrats are innocent and pure. Just an opinion on what has transpired in the recent political past to lead us to a government that is clearly not representative of the electorate.
 
gerrymandering is defs a form of rigging an election.
 
Good thing the Dems filibustered Gorsuch! Really galvanized the Resistance!!

(oh wait, we just bombed Syria and nobody's paying attention to SCOTUS)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top